JUDGING PEOPLE BY THEIR LOOKS

HOW TO JUDGE PEOPLE BY WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE

(2018: Edward Dutton) by EDWARD DUTTON

Rev. by Hugh Murray

Edward Dutton has written a short but disappointing book arguing that we do and should judge people by the way they look. The most obvious deficiency is the book's lack of an index. By omitting the index, it is more difficult for the reader to cross-check some of Dutton's seemingly contradictory claims. His bibliography may be useful, but is no substitute for an index.

There are typos and deleted words that sometimes make comprehension difficult to impossible. For example, in one paragraph, “...Dutton et al...has argued that until the Industrial Revolution were evolved...::Religiousness, it shows, it about 0.4 genetic.”(p. 73) On the previous page when discussing friendships of the opposite sex, Dutton writes, “...when it comes to opposite sex fiends, the male...”(72) Is this a typo, a Freudian slip, or Dutton's view of men who seek friendships with women?

Sometimes it is not the typos but Dutton's condensed, oblique writing that converts paragraphs into gibberish for the average reader. His description the meanings of the D2:D4 ratios (69) and how criminal faces differ from law-abiding folks (53) is murky.

In a short paragraph, Dutton raises many important issues. “It would follow that by 2018 almost 90% of the population of England wouldn't have existed in 1700; when the population was at its maximum for the agricultural ecology of about 6 million. And this 90% would be the mutants who would be lower in intelligence, lower in GFP (General Factor of Personality), and higher in criminality. So it makes sense that the criminals are more genetically diverse. Genetic diversity is a reflex of the collapse of Natural Selection.”(54) What Dutton ignores is the huge amount of immigration to England in recent decades by people from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, British West Indies, etc., and more recently immigrants from EU countries and beyond. Most of these immigrants – in the millions, have nothing to do genetically with the inhabitants of England of 1700. Beyond that, his argument is also suspect – that living standards rose slowly as did the height and intelligence of the people, geniuses developed new scientific and medical techniques improving the general health and welfare. In 1800 the child mortality rate was about 40%; around 1900, 10%; and today, 1%. The more likely child deaths of the past – the mutants, now survive instead. The mutants generally have lower intelligence and higher rates of criminality.(54, 74) But is this true?

However, in Dutton's presentation, this may not be a problem at all. “...the smarter you are the stronger will be your attraction to evolutionary mismatch...” and thus “in the modern societies, intelligence is effectively maladptation.”(68)

Dutton cites studies to buttress his argument throughout his book, but the number of people cited in each of the studies varies considerably. Thus, a study on p. 28 had a sample of 84; on 38, 20; on 41, 144 and 95; on 46, eight thousand; on 51, one thousand, six hundred sixty. How valid are studies with tiny samples?

Dutton avoids the politically correct attack on common sense that posits that race is simply a social construct. He observes 3 major races that have distinguishing characteristics, though not for each member of the group.

On one area his findings differ from those I read of years ago – left handedness. Dutton argues that a few lefties may be above average in intelligence in narrow fields like math, but overall, they are generally less intelligent than righties. Furthermore, lefties are less mentally stable and more prone to sexual deviancy.(70-71) I find it especially interesting in that to call someone “left handed” was once a euphemism for calling them homosexual. Is there a connection, and what might it be?

For some years I played soccer as a member of the New York Ramblers soccer club, the world's first openly gay soccer group. I find it strange that Dutton, a European, never raised the issue of left-footedness. Almost every male European, indeed, most males throughout the world will be aware of their footedness, because they all play football (soccer). Most Americans do not know their footedness. I played soccer with the Ramblers; I was not there to collect data as a social scientist. But players might want to play one position or another depending on if they were more adept with their right or left foot. Most of our players were right footed. Most of them were also right handed. I too am strongly right handed and footed. But there were a few who were left footed and right handed. At least one said he had been pressured as a child to become right handed. Today, discussing the issue with a dental student from India, as she was about to pull one of my teeth, said she was left footed, but as a child, she too had been pushed to become right handed. Back to the soccer team – some said they were not pressured, they were left footed and right handed. And there ere a few who were right footed and left handed. Presumably, no one would have pressured them to become left handed. Since often the handedness of the individual is an indication of the organization of that person's brain, handedness can be quite important. But does anyone consider footedness? Does this indicate a special brain organization?

I also taught at a university in China. I don't recall with certainty now, but I think there were no desks for left handers in all my class rooms (it is possible my memory is faulty, but if there were none, then only a very few). I don't recall any left-handed students there. Is it genetic or social pressure that seemed to produce an absence of left handers?

Dutton provides a short definition of intelligence – the ability to solve problems fast.(57) He places creativity as a subdivision of intelligence; I suspect this is incorrect. When discussing homosexuals and intelligence, Dutton thinks the more openness of gays to “strange or unusual ways of thinking,” will make them better at problem solving. I suspect that gays, Jews, and other minorities are more likely to think outside the box, and be more creative. But is this really a subdivision of intelligence?

Dutton informs us that larger pupil size indicates a higher IQ.(56) If I take drugs that increase the size of my pupils, will I become more intelligent? Certainly, many writers and artists have taken drugs and appear to believe it enhanced their creativity.

“On average, better-looking people are more intelligent.”(65) Yet, elsewhere Dutton asserts that in general women with large breasts and men who are noticeably muscular are less intelligent than the lesser physically endowed men and women. (He contrasts the K strategy, fast track people with the r-strategy, slower, more nerdy types)(40-44) However, many would deem the large breasted women and muscular men as more attractive. Contradictions.

Overall, Dutton's book is too condensed, seemingly full of contradictions and undeveloped theses. He does make one valid point – if we are pressed for time to catch a plane, which passerby will we ask for information? The unshaven man who smells like he has not washed for days and may be homeless? Or the man dressed as if he's about to attend a business luncheon? At that moment we will judge and act, our decisions based upon the person's appearance.